and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

11 Aug 2011, 12:12

bschool83 wrote:

Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten years have shown that patients who had regularly attended support groups or received counseling experienced significantly fewer side effects and shorter recovery times from chemotherapy than did patients who had not. Clearly, although the mainstream scientific community has been slow to acknowledge it, psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

The survival rates for chemotherapy patients in the study were virtually identical regardless of whether or not they received support. The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend. Many medical doctors believe that the mind plays a role in the causation and prevention of illness. The majority of chemotherapy patients must undergo more than one round of treatment. Some hospitals do not conduct support groups on their premises for chemotherapy patients and their families.

I picked B in this case because I was able to clearly write off all the other options, but not because B made a lot of sense at first. But after reading the posts, I started thinking, well, what would weaken this argument. A weakening statement could attack the study and whether there were any biases. One way to combat that would be to say that all the patients who went to SGs or Counceling did so by choice (volunteered) and were above some health threshold or equally ill as supported by this statement "healthy enough to attend". B does this by addressing the people who did not attend, which is clever because it also applies to those who did attend. I may be off in my thinking, welcome any feedback.

Show Tags

12 Aug 2011, 05:57

It's a nice one! one got to be carefull forsuch questions. B actually explains all those who attended SGs were not healthier than who did not attended rarther proportionally equally healthy (so this choice fills the gap of the argument that what if all those who attended were of healthier !) though C is equally lucrative option ;-/
_________________

Show Tags

I agree this question is tricky but sticking to fundamental of reasoning works here.

Conclusion is 'psychological support helps heal faster'Evidence: people who attended these events healed faster than those who didn't attend

This is a causal argument. Something that suggests that no other factor caused the attendees to heal faster, should be the answer. B portrays this but saying the healthier people didn't attend, i.e., all attendees were equally ill.

C is 50/50 right. "mind plays a role in the causation of illness" is not mentioned anywhere.

B is the OA.

Sorry, still not with pace.B says healthier ppl didn't attend, how could it mean that ill ppl recovered because of pshy. helps heal faster.How B is stating that "no other factor caused the attendees to heal faster".

could you please explain a bit more ?
_________________

"Giving kudos" is a decent way to say "Thanks" and motivate contributors.Please use them, it won't cost you anything.Thanks Rphardu

Re: Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Aug 2012, 09:34

Choice B would have made more sense if instead of healthy it was mentioned not healthy ie

The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were not healthy.

This would have clearly meant that even though group was not healthy it didnt attend the group => health had no role in healing.By stating healthy , the question has obviously become more difficult a 750+ category question I should say.
_________________

Re: Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Dec 2012, 16:18

On this, I have made a note to myself to be careful with answer choices that involve words such as "some", "many" and part/whole ideas. It's easier to just gloss over them and miss the implications completely.

Re: Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 00:03

Can't E be the answer. It clearly says that hospital did not have such support group on its premises as those support groups shortened the recovery time. From a financial point of view the hospital wouldn't want the recovery time to be shortened which clearly says that the support groups indeed had a psychological advantage on patients.

Re: Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 03:25

1

This post receivedKUDOS

B, Only this can be arrived at

The conclusion says that "Clearly, although the mainstream scientific community has been slow to acknowledge it, psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal."

What would strengthen the argument ? Well something that provides support that the patients who were part of the support group were actually not in better health than those who were not part of the support group, that the group was not designed so that the results were skewed in favor of the conclusion. Note: Even, similar health level would suffice, but option B goes further than that, It says that people were healthy enough and they chose not to attend and therefore they suffered.

Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten years have shown that patients who had regularly attended support groups or received counseling experienced significantly fewer side effects and shorter recovery times from chemotherapy than did patients who had not. Clearly, although the mainstream scientific community has been slow to acknowledge it, psychological support has an effect on the body's ability to heal.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

The survival rates for chemotherapy patients in the study were virtually identical regardless of whether or not they received support. This actually weakens the argument.The patients who did not attend support groups chose not to do so, even though they were healthy enough to attend. Correct as explained aboveMany medical doctors believe that the mind plays a role in the causation and prevention of illness. Wow first of this a bit far fetched. Let' say that mind actually does play a role (good or bad we don't know) in causation and prevention of disease. Does it also help in healing ? So we are drawing a lot of assumptions.The majority of chemotherapy patients must undergo more than one round of treatment. Does not affect the argumentSome hospitals do not conduct support groups on their premises for chemotherapy patients and their families. Does this even affect the argument._________________

Re: Numerous studies of chemotherapy patients over the last ten [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Oct 2013, 04:27

mohnish104 wrote:

Thanks for the explanations. I couldn't have thought of the above explanation in my wildest imaginations? Is there a method to think or reason in a particular way or does it come spontaneously to you?

Most important thing is to identify the conclusion. There is generalization applicable here. For these types of question, which are based on different groups and result /conclusion is in favor of one over the other, the information that can strengthen the argument would generally tend to be the one that provides evidence that pre-conditions used to achieve the goal were not skewed in favor of the winning group. Same is applicable for questions based on research or survey results.
_________________